Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 29, 2014 8:00pm-8:31pm PST

8:00 pm
that is right now we have two policies one is that 90 percent of medium income is section 13 and recently have a well, this last election the policy of having housing raising it up to one hundred and thirty percent i think one of the points this board has talked about although planning hadn't moved forward aggressively to address is the need for workforce housing also so one of my suggestions would be and again is the city attorney has to jump into it whether or not it's improbable whether they're for sale units there are people in this town who wants to purchase units but they're not available at a rate
8:01 pm
they can afford so perhaps it's the other debate we need to bring into this decision. >> thank you supervisor farrell. >> so i understand there are currently two rent controls unit your mentioning one unit as a bmr scenario can you explain the discrepancy. >> one is subject to rent control currently, however, the record is that none of the units has been on the rental market since 199 of they have been used by the previous owner when at the come into the town and they have not been part of the rental market value for a a long time.
8:02 pm
>> to be clear it's 2 rent control units today. >> right now no. they're not right now those unit at the bottom - okay there are two questions you're asking one is are they rent control units yes, but under section 7717 which is the outer complooement neighborhood district you can ask to demolish a residential unit. >> okay. but to be clear today, it's two rent control units and today, there are two residential units neither one is going to - >> okay. >> and has not been.
8:03 pm
>> supervisor kim. >> thank you i just had two questions actually, i wasn't going to ask but there are actually a member of the public said she was a tenant in 2003. >> there's a care taker it was broken into and it is vandalized so one of her sons friend that graduated from college looking for a job and so she offered the apartment for him to stay in while he's looking for a job so the place will be vandalized. >> when did the owner purchase those. >> in 2013. >> in 2013 so when it solid it
8:04 pm
was vacant. >> yes. >> and the last known tenant was the caretaker. >> not consider taker didn't move in until may have 2013 and he didn't pay any rent. >> okay. back to actually, my earlier question because i'm interested in looking at a number of different options what did the option look like in terms of i'm not the your building on the vacant lot next to the two unit building. >> the problem is again, the size of the lot what is left of it by the time you have a radish you don't end up with a site that is big enough for 3 bedroom units and
8:05 pm
one of the goals of the project sponsor is to constrict 3 bedroom units. >> and i know this site allows for 8 unit as stated by the planning staff will there be 8 smaller units. >> no, this building is all right. maxed out in terms of height so if you go to one to have 8 units urge you to have to take one of the 8 bedrooms and reduce it in size. >> i got it okay. but it's great to hear there's an interest in working out a solution we need more time to talk to the members of the public but i appreciate there's movement on the dialog. >> colleagues any further questions to the project sponsor. >> okay. at this point why not hear from members of the public
8:06 pm
who wish to support the project sponsor. >> good morning supervisor i'm george i'm the retired real estate business broker along richmond resident i have a question i'd like to address a question that supervisor jane kim brought up this builder she built a of unit building and 3 of them are actually affordable as you can get square footage is 11 hundred secret so to swedes 3 bedrooms in 11 square feet is not easy that's pretty much any private builder can do on affordable basis now if you take an additional unit for the affordable and put on the
8:07 pm
affordable side 3 unit are affordable then the other 3 units are slightly larger make them as affordable then the private owner has two unit to recapture their investment this is discouraging where people are trying to develop additional new housing for the city so you have to realize the city should give extra incentives for a smaller builder like marching to build this kind of unit rather than discourage it but if you supervisor jane kim if you are considering we put up we required the owner to provide additional affordable but their though the building luxury unit in in my opinion i will in the
8:08 pm
richmond district for a a long time with 3 bedroom new united for 11 hundred secret it's really affordable - >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi, i'm amy lee i'm not not working on this project but speaking as a resident of the richmond district i'm a single mom of 3 i'd love to have those size of rental apartment this is a city that is favorable unfriendly with one bedroom studios i've moved to the richmond and stuck in a house this is too expensive because they're not unit like this available to families like myself i felt strongly but this project and feel for marching she is he is so developed previous projects that are skeptic to the community and i
8:09 pm
understand you guys have an important citywide policy with affordability but we're looking at 2 units that are 2 hundred and 50 sfooet e square feet and the other one thousand plus not assessable for anyone to rent i understand we have a challenge and major affordability problem but moving forward this particular development it might be weighing on her shoulders being the fact she's looking at building the user frantically in the richmond i would like you to balance out this citywide policy and start with a smaller developer so thank you very much and i think you may need to legislation late a policy for the small developer thank you.
8:10 pm
>> thank you. next speaker. >> i'm jeffrey currently eagle in the property right now so me and couple of friends college friends moved back in may of last year you can marching needed a permit at about we've lived there short term we don't pay any rent but in return we manage the property and make sure there's no trash and she was getting fined from rats from the city and so after living there after a year and a half there's a definitely liveable condition like sweeping floors and maybe the power goes out the problems but definitely it's a place that is good for living short term and free but definitely we have to pay rent
8:11 pm
to live there long term is not reasonable thank you. >> knapp u president chiu. >> jeffrey what time period did you live in the building there starting from may 2013 to current and currently right now. >> it's not vacant your currently living there. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> >> next speaker. >> hi, i'm bryan a resident of the richmond district i'm in favor of this project affordable housing to buy where can you buy 3 bedroom units in san francisco also it costs a lot of money where can you buy it you have a husband and wife and two kids where are they going to live
8:12 pm
it's extremely difficult this is affordable because of the square footage of this property 11 hundred square feet for 3 units this is something people can afford they can't afford to buy otherwise so i'm for families and for purchase of those beautiful units so i'm flavor thank you. >> hello, i'm andy chin on clemente street i have a small family my i did not know it is 8 going to school in the richmond district for the last 4 years i'm done with renting and call myself a san franciscan homeowners but two bedrooms is easier to find i really like 3 and just having looked at around inform three or four years i've
8:13 pm
got to tell you it is hard we've done all the open homes and broker tours it's difficult when you find something your competing with buyers with all cash that's crazy so i'm in favor of this project the more inventor of 3 bedroom type of places would be great i know i'd like to stay in the city myself and again, i approve that this project and hopes it goes forward thank you. >> hi, i'm sharon basically me and my friend annie supports this building the reason he support this project is 6 units, 3 bedrooms is just great for the neighborhood
8:14 pm
it talks about the diversity and people who have a family some people have 4 kids and no where to go no where to go one bedroom, 2 bedroom units and possible it's not possible to have a quality of life when controlled unit and one of a million chance to possibility you know get one and on top of that you're talking about 11 hundred secret, 3 bedroom unit that is affordable for people to guy to go out and buy a 3 bedroom house or condo in san francisco right now is like you have to win the lottery it is hard you have a medium income husband and wife with three or four kids its impossible to food it i support
8:15 pm
this. >> are there any members of the public who wish to speak seeing none, why not a rebuttal by the appellant court mr. williams up to 3 minutes. >> thank you president chiu and members of the board thank you for your attention to this and your intelligent comments it sounds like this is going to be continued to have a further look-see i want to correct some of the errors this building is occupied by tenant up until the purchase until december 2012 all the neighbors informed me who students probably a lot like jeffrey that lived up there and bought out before the developers bought it a month in january of 2013 and, of course, immediately tried to demolish it so there's
8:16 pm
been tenant pretty much continuing so discussion about what could be developed it is pretty much wide open 7 units could be put on the lot without the subdivision you need a 25 percent raider but you could expand it i don't know about the discussion you can't add a rear yard if you could have the overhead please. sfgovtv. >> this is the code required rear yard of 25 percent which the neighbors is fine the present could be expanded if built right could fall under rent control they can add more rent control unit by expanding the building so the thought we're trapped into options we don't have is not true
8:17 pm
here's with the developers the department asked them to do a 25 percent rear yard on both of the rear lots there are a lot of confusion the lots have not obey subdivided it's one lot here's what the department pretty much asks for 25 percent of each lot at ground floor they saw an exception and said the reason we need this exception we can't put rear yard or synonym those are odd lots this is much of a disappointment from the neighbors they were not flexible about the rear yard and open space they proposed less than 10 percent zero rear yard and open space in lot a and the possibility of expanding the lots and building on b there's a
8:18 pm
lot of possibilities out there there's really no limits on what can be approved as dictated by zoning it requires the demolition of sound rent control units thank you. >> thank you, mr. williams colleagues any questions to the parties? okay. at this point this hearing has been held and this matter is in the hands of the board supervisor mar >> so let me start by thanking planning staff and the project sponsor and mr. williams and on that have people in favor of the appeal it's been about a year i've been involved and contacted by ms. lee and the owner gabriel i feel this year's time to look
8:19 pm
at the preservation or the don't guess but the creation of protection of two below market rate units within the project i'm not sure that a continuance of time would allow movement on botsdz i'm open to that if this is what the body wants i'm willing to vote on this today as my colleagues have said as policymakers in the city the discretionary under 317 that the planning commissioners looked at the 3 that voted against the project i feel they're making the right policy call in making sure that we are preserving such we can in the rent control and housing stocking in the city we need family sized housing like those from the public that have spoken in favor of the project
8:20 pm
but not losing two units of affordable housing it is revealing that jeffrey said he's been living in the unit i'll say the project sponsor were saying it was vacant i feel that is people have not been truthful in the process any office a looked for the progress that supervisor kim have been bringing up but no movement on their part and even if we could guarantee as supervisor campos said like a park merced type of solution i'm not sure i'm that open administrative being that my hope as this bystander body is thinking about this and looking at the rule 37 of the code i'll say wherever there's the project sponsor demonstrated that the residential structure is not un10u7b89d and people are living
8:21 pm
there right now point number 7 whether the project removed rental projects subject to the arbitration it clearly does and there are a couple of others clear discretionary guidance to the planning commissioners, i feel like under the don't guess section 317 we s have to vote to have this appeal i ask you to join with the residents not only like sue from the sierra club but from the richmond that feel you have wealthier individuals buying and displacement of protecting folks this is a concern and rejecting the planning commission decision in favor of boarder levels approach
8:22 pm
looking at section 317 of the planning code i urge you to vote to the appeal and and a as described seconded supervisor breed further discussion. >> supervisor breed. >> yes. i want to make a few comments about this particular item if the property had been delipidated or issues with the property i think it would be a different ball game i'm not supportive of agreeing to demolish rent control units whether or not their are we talking about out or someone occupies them or not its a limited housing stock it's something we can't take for granted i would be more open to continuing the item that if supervisor mar were open to that based on his experience it's clear he believes the project
8:23 pm
sponsor is not willing to negotiate or make sure that, in fact, there are options to maintain some level of affordability so i'm comfortable with supporting the appeal to maintain those rent controls if the project sponsor want to look at an alternative and look at a way in which he or she can support maintaining some level of affordability for the two units whether the of they're building or proposing to build and making sure that 2 of those somehow below market rate units but clearly it's not on the table at this point, i'll be supporting supervisor mar in the motion. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you president chiu i think i would genetically side
8:24 pm
with supervisor breed's comments we've got a larger stock of housing units this project is great in that regard on the one side you know two sound units of rent control stock that's a tough one to shallow especially in this environment i think i have questions as supervisor mar accident about they're vacant but not people saying they are they're being occupied so that lends itself to ms. claborn-welch i'll be open if there's discussions all around know for sale having two of them being bmr units for a win-win situation i understand that supervisor mar said that's been
8:25 pm
going on i'd like to see that decision continue this is not going to be the last time we're going to hear this subject and if we create a pathway to be a win-win situations moving forward as we increase the housing stock is something i'll be in favor of and if this appeal gets upheld this project i hope comes back with that discussion in mind and relatively put forward this is a challenging one but at the end of the day as supervisor wiener mentioned as well two sound rent control unit today to tear them down for this without discussion i think supervisor mar mentioned over a year he's been trying to broker and clearly some misinformation about whether or not those units are vacant i'm going to vote to uphold the appeal. >> supervisor kim.
8:26 pm
>> having not worked on this i'll prefer the continuance that being said i've not worked on the issue maybe there wasn't a clear viable option it would have been presented so if the vote is going to happen i'll be supervisor mar on sporting supporting the appeal i'm very excited about the possibility of building more 3 bedroom units and feel is certainly a block we've only built 23 units over the last 5 years in san francisco that being said bobby kohlman mentioned this but i'm one of the members of this board that made a commitment to support a band on demolishing of rent control units here within the city certainly i've held up to that two developers approached me on van ness
8:27 pm
billboard that wanted to demolish project that i've let them know i can't support their project of this is on 2 units i'd like to see an alternative option i hope we can workout i think that the project sponsor attorneys oppose a solution i'm open this self-end the discussion but if the vote is happening today i'll be supporting the appeal. >> thank you it sounds like common ground on the issues and so i'm going to make a motion to continue those items by two weeks. >> if the motion fails then we'll have to obviously look at the appeal but it seems like there are enough questions
8:28 pm
raised by a what is possible that we should give ourselves two weeks more information from the city attorney's office and see what makes sense so i move to two weeks. >> it takes precedence so is there a second and second by supervisor yee further discussion supervisor campos. >> thank you just i guess through the chair a question for supervisor mar i would defer to him in terms of not working on this project he believes there are as point in having a further discussion but i certainly will defer to his judgment as he and his staff has been working on this matter. >> supervisor.
8:29 pm
>> i guess i should say that about a year ago i started the process to talk about some solution to as people are proposing the project sponsor is not provided that i don't feel like two additional weeks is going to move us closer to that point i'll urge you to vote on this today, i know any colleagues might be more optimistic but for a long time i've been skeptical so i am for the motion to continue. >> other comments colleagues okay supervisor wiener. >> yeah. i'm supervisor mar i'd like to withdraw the motion i think it would be worth exploring this but supervisor
8:30 pm
mar's office has been involved for sometime so i'm going to request to withdrew the motion. >> supervisor wiener has withdrawn his motion to continue. >> i thought i would support a continuance i wanted to stated some of my comments the lion share i hoped we'd seen a come mice i know that the planning department has heard my time and time again, i building in creating additional housing stock it addresses some of our problems we're facing in san francisco so but i think one of the public commenters made it clear in saying we're struggling right now with competing policy goals i'd like to see additional units created i said the struggles that supervima


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on